Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

The wolf story.

I'm unsure if this fits in this forum, but it seems the most logical to me. This is my first post, so moderators, feel free to move this where appopriate.

I often get into arguments with family members, friends, people I know, about why I am an athiest. I found a way to sort of, open their eyes. They are too stubborn to listen to me strictly say that their is no god. So, instead of challenging the belief in god, I challenge the intent of god. This they will listen to, and I've had a few people eventually become athiest because of this story.

These religious people often tell me that god loves us all. I ask them that if he did, why is the world such a terrible, hostile place? They tell me it is not the fault of god, but of satan. God is our father, and cares for us. So, I tell them this story.

Their is a family that lives in the woods. Father, mother, son. They live in a nice cabin, grow their own food, hunt their own meat, etc. They live in what could best be described as harmony. As the son grows older, the father takes him, and says, "Take a look at this forest. This forest belongs to you. Care for it, and it shall give you all that which you need to live in comfort. Food, water shelter, you can have it all here. Be warned, though, for to the east is dangerous. Their is a cave, and in that cave a den of wolves. Do not go to the east, for you will die." The son promises he will never go east. As the son grows older, curiousity naturally becomes him, and he starts to venture further and futher east. One day, he is quite far east, and decides that he shall go, and take a look at this cave. Just once, and never again. The son goes to the cave, looks, and his curiousity is satisfied. As he turns around to go home, the wolf jumps out, and attacks him. The son screams. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! The father hears this scream, and knows what has happened. The father takes his gun, loads it, brings spare ammunition, and runs towards his son. He can here his son screaming in agony, and the wolf mauling him. As the father arrives, he sees the wolf attacking his son. The father fires one shot into the air, hoping to scare the wolf away. BANG!!!! This does nothing, and the wolf still mauls the son. The son stares up at the father, with tears and blood running down his face, and says to his father, "I'm sorry. Please help me." Now, the father has a clear shot of the wolf. Their is no way the father will accidentally hit his son, nor miss the wolf. The father puts another round in the chamber, aims the gun, and then stops. The father lowers the gun, leans on a tree, and watches the scene unfold.

I ask you, who is worse? The wolf that attacks the child, or the father that, though he has the power to stop this, merely sits back, watches, and does nothing?

I often get into arguments with family members, friends, people I know, about why I am an athiest. I found a way to sort of, open their eyes. They are too stubborn to listen to me strictly say that their is no god. So, instead of challenging the belief in god, I challenge the intent of god. This they will listen to, and I've had a few people eventually become athiest because of this story.

These religious people often tell me that god loves us all. I ask them that if he did, why is the world such a terrible, hostile place? They tell me it is not the fault of god, but of satan.

When theists try to construe that satan is the reason for evil in the world, point out that that would make satan more powerful than god. If they try to claim that satan is stealthly, that would mean god is not all knowing. Also point out that it is their belief that god made everything, including satan, which would mean god actually created evil.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

I indeed do point these out, and give examples as to why. I ask them that if god is all powerful and all knowing, how did he not foresee the satanic revolution that occured in heaven? Through logic, I try to prove to them that god is not perfect. Perfection is a very strict word, and one not to be taken lightly. If something is perfect, everything that thing does, makes, creates, is also therefore perfect. The lord created us, we are not perfect, therefore god is not perfect. It is through this that I create the doubt in their mind as to the intentions of god. I'll try not to use profanity, but through this they view god through a less than ideal light. A tyrant, a divine dictator, a malevolent being. Then they quickly realise that god is not a tyrant, a divine dictator, a malevolent being. They realise god does not exist.

I mean this not to sound arrogant. On the contrary. For the majority of my life I have been a devoted religious fool. It is for this I know how to speak to the religious and actually have them listen. They refuse to hear that god does not exist. You could offer all the evidence to the contrary, they will still believe in a god. It is hardwired in their brain, and they will not hear the words spoken, nor the logic of those words, simply because they refuse to. But if you argue the intent of their god, they will listen. If you deny god, they won't hear you, but if you call their god a tyrant, they will listen. They will still argue, but they will listen.

2 Kings 6:33 Behold, this evil is of the lord; what should I wait for the lord any longer?

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in the city, and the lord hath not done it?

Incidents of wolf attakcs on people are extremely rare. If your odor is human, your chances of being attacked in a wolf-infested forest are about equal the chance that you find a wolf den, extract 6 wolf pups and start trempling them with your feet until the wolf-mother comes home.

In an unlikely event that you should be attacked by a wolf just because you entered it's teritory, making noise is usually all you need to do to succesfully defend yourself. To defend against a wolf that physically assaults you there are several options, but main guidelines are: stay on your feet, give it something to bite on and continuously kick chest/neck region from below.

In a twice as likely event that you get attacked by a pack of wolves, climbing to a staggering 0% chance: stay on your feet with your back to a solid barrier (large tree, wall), have a weapon of at least 3 feet in length able to jab and deliver blunt force or splitting trauma on charging animals. Wood axe is perfect. Aim for the head.

The best weapons against any animal attack are semi-automatic 5.56mm - 7.62mm assault rifles. Aim at chest/head region, since they usually are large on a predator and you don't want to wound it. Carry a semi-automatic weapon wherever it's allowed.

If you have a father that does not shoot a wolf that is attacking you and the wolf has taken you down kill the wolf by crushing it's throat/windpipe, take the rifle and shoot the old man. Make sure to burry him away from public roads, parks and known scavenger teritorry, if you intend for him to stay burried. 6 feet is sufficient depth, but if the ground is frozen, digging might be an issue. Your best bet is a large body of water and several heavy objects tied to the body. Remember to cut open the stomach and lungs to allow gasses to escape without bloating the body.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

I live in Canada. Our semi-auto centerfire rifles need to be pinned to 5 rounds(though their is a loophole that will allow us to have ten rounds in a centerfire semi-auto rifle). Also, my AR-15's and AR-10's are classed so that I can't take them out hunting, protection, etc. Only to the firing range. Though I can take my Tavor 21 and CZ-858 out. Where I live, we have alot of cattle farms. Sheep, cows, even ostrich, which the coyotes and wolves come to take advantage. When I go to hunt them, I use a Weatherby MK V in .223REM/5.556 NATO, with a Burris 6x18 scope. Doesn't ruin the hide much, and I'm a good shot with it that I can get a clean, humane kill. As for protection for when I'm in the woods, Remington 870 loaded with OO buckshot and deer slugs. It's not so much wolves I'm worried about, but bears. I was attacked by a bear once, and prefer not to have that happen again. Walking back from camp at night when with a bear walking beside me. So dark I did not know. Some drunk guy shines a light on us and yells. That scared the bear, and the bear attacks me. Those jaws hurt.

I live in Canada. Our semi-auto centerfire rifles need to be pinned to 5 rounds(though their is a loophole that will allow us to have ten rounds in a centerfire semi-auto rifle). Also, my AR-15's and AR-10's are classed so that I can't take them out hunting, protection, etc. Only to the firing range. Though I can take my Tavor 21 and CZ-858 out. Where I live, we have alot of cattle farms. Sheep, cows, even ostrich, which the coyotes and wolves come to take advantage. When I go to hunt them, I use a Weatherby MK V in .223REM/5.556 NATO, with a Burris 6x18 scope. Doesn't ruin the hide much, and I'm a good shot with it that I can get a clean, humane kill. As for protection for when I'm in the woods, Remington 870 loaded with OO buckshot and deer slugs. It's not so much wolves I'm worried about, but bears. I was attacked by a bear once, and prefer not to have that happen again. Walking back from camp at night when with a bear walking beside me. So dark I did not know. Some drunk guy shines a light on us and yells. That scared the bear, and the bear attacks me. Those jaws hurt.

I indeed do point these out, and give examples as to why. I ask them that if god is all powerful and all knowing, how did he not foresee the satanic revolution that occured in heaven? Through logic, I try to prove to them that god is not perfect. Perfection is a very strict word, and one not to be taken lightly. If something is perfect, everything that thing does, makes, creates, is also therefore perfect. The lord created us, we are not perfect, therefore god is not perfect. It is through this that I create the doubt in their mind as to the intentions of god. I'll try not to use profanity, but through this they view god through a less than ideal light. A tyrant, a divine dictator, a malevolent being. Then they quickly realise that god is not a tyrant, a divine dictator, a malevolent being. They realise god does not exist.

I mean this not to sound arrogant. On the contrary. For the majority of my life I have been a devoted religious fool. It is for this I know how to speak to the religious and actually have them listen. They refuse to hear that god does not exist. You could offer all the evidence to the contrary, they will still believe in a god. It is hardwired in their brain, and they will not hear the words spoken, nor the logic of those words, simply because they refuse to. But if you argue the intent of their god, they will listen. If you deny god, they won't hear you, but if you call their god a tyrant, they will listen. They will still argue, but they will listen.

2 Kings 6:33 Behold, this evil is of the lord; what should I wait for the lord any longer?

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in the city, and the lord hath not done it?

Hi Slithery - thanks for your post - I know just where you are coming from.

My background is similar to yours - god-bothering family, general acceptance of god as child slowly tempered by inability to embrace self-deception, recognition not self deceived, childish

consideration of ramifications that now I will be eternally tortured by 'loving, heavenly father', sudden realisation of utter bollocks of god who loves me but hates my sin so now must kill me.

The cleverer members of my family have retreated to the position of 'prime mover' where safely tucked away in another universe that may not exist they make concrete observations about this

reality not based on inter-universe astronomy. One even believes that fossils were put there by Satan....wow.

Hey - are there really still significant numbers of wolves in north america? I thought the USA anyway, had no wolves left. Appreciate the advice on surviving wolf attacks and will bear it in mind next time

I go to the bank.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

I ask you, who is worse? The wolf that attacks the child, or the father that, though he has the power to stop this, merely sits back, watches, and does nothing?

An allegorical approach to the problem of evil.

Take this for what it is worth, I've known numerous Christians who did not see their god as such. The will answer something similar to what C.S. Lewis wrote in the Problem of Pain:

What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, 'What does it matter so long as they are contented?' We want, in fact, not so much as a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven-- a senile benevolence who, as they say, 'liked to see young people enjoying themselves', and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, 'A good time was had by all.'... I should very much like to live in a universe which was goverened on such lines. But since it is abundantly clear that I don't, and since I have reason to believe, nevertheless, that God is love, I conclude that my conception of love needs correction.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

"Hey - are there really still significant numbers of wolves in north america? I thought the USA anyway, had no wolves left. Appreciate the advice on surviving wolf attacks and will bear it in mind next time"

I know they were wiped out in parts of the US, but recently (last ten or so years), there has been a concentrated effort to bring them back to some of these places.
And Canada never really came close to wiping them out, so we have healthy populations.
But as implied, wolves are much less likely to attack you then the family dog. And even if one did attack, the average human is more than capable of knocking its lights out.
Bears are a far more dangerous animal. Especially if you don't see mom.
Cougars are also more dangerous than wolves. They are only slighty more likely to attack you, but you will be dead before you realise you're being attacked unless the cat is hurt or sick. When walking through mountain trails at night, keep an eye on the trees, and try not to walk under them if you can avoid it.

"Hey - are there really still significant numbers of wolves in north america? I thought the USA anyway, had no wolves left. Appreciate the advice on surviving wolf attacks and will bear it in mind next time" I know they were wiped out in parts of the US, but recently (last ten or so years), there has been a concentrated effort to bring them back to some of these places. And Canada never really came close to wiping them out, so we have healthy populations. But as implied, wolves are much less likely to attack you then the family dog. And even if one did attack, the average human is more than capable of knocking its lights out. Bears are a far more dangerous animal. Especially if you don't see mom. Cougars are also more dangerous than wolves. They are only slighty more likely to attack you, but you will be dead before you realise you're being attacked unless the cat is hurt or sick. When walking through mountain trails at night, keep an eye on the trees, and try not to walk under them if you can avoid it.

They tried to bring them back in Alaska.

Then Palin started open season on them, from aircraft, with automatic weapons.

She even used federal money to reward kills if you brought back certain body parts to redeem.

I know in Canada that wolves are certainly well known. Perhaps not abundant, but certainly not threatened. Coyotes outnumber them, however, and are easily confused with wolves. I'm unsure about the USA, though I do have friends and relatives who have both wolf and coyote problems. The coyotes also outnumber the wolves. Being attacked by a wolf is very unlikely. Being attacked by a coyote is almost laughable. Even bears are unlikely, unless it's momma bear protecting her cubs. As for my experience, to put it crudely, it was a random act of bullshit.

Fossils planted by Satan? That is truly pathetic. I have one member who uses fossils to prove the existence of god. Fossils of seashells have apparently been found on top of mountains, which is used to justify the story of Noah's ark. By that logic, this can prove also the countless number of ethnic stories and fables that the earth was once covered in water. All this means to me is that it was possible the earth was once covered in water. Doesn't mean anything about a divine being.

"Fossils of seashells have apparently been found on top of mountains, which is used to justify the story of Noah's ark."

Actually, that's because of plate tectonics. All land on Earth began in the depths of the seas. Over time, new land continuously pushes up and out, eventually getting pushed far enough to no longer be submerged. Sometimes the growth bumps into another one, and they bend into mountains. The highest peaks on Earth were once the bottom of the oceans. It is therefore expected that sea creature fossils would be found there.

What's interesting in this case is that when the earth was allegedly covered with water it was rain water - not salt. What this means is that oceanic pippie shells and what have you can't have been

deposited on mountain tops. Then there's the issue of covering the whole earth with water up to the height of mount everest. I don't know the math but you could not cover the earth with water

to that level without changing its mass and throwing it out of orbit.

There are a number of religious shows on Fox that seek to prove there was a great flood but they're all laughable. I can just see the great specimen collector noah in the amazon with his 2 sons and

couple of wives achieving in a couple of weeks what experts have failed to do in 200 years - the identification and collection of every living creature there.

Then there's the simple fact that gathering up 2 of everything and blithely expecting them to do the mumbo regardless of genetic bottlenecks is impossible, not to mention the lack of fodder. Some bright

spark once calculated how many arks it would have taken to supply every living creature on the earth with food and sustenance for 12 months and it came to about 1500.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Maybe Noah was given use of Vader's Executor or Sidious' Eclipse. Both vessels were large enough to house and habitate two, or 50+ in the case of the Eclipse, of every life form on Earth with ease. Both ships are designed in such a way that with a little modification they'd be seaworthy. And can take off for a bit if weather got too rough.

Actually, that's because of plate tectonics. All land on Earth began in the depths of the seas. Over time, new land continuously pushes up and out, eventually getting pushed far enough to no longer be submerged. Sometimes the growth bumps into another one, and they bend into mountains. The highest peaks on Earth were once the bottom of the oceans. It is therefore expected that sea creature fossils would be found there.

Haha, yeah, exactly. Aside from the fact that there isn't enough water on the surface of the Earth to flood all the mountains, water didn't have to be at the top of mountains for us to find fossils of marine organisms there. Creatures can just die at the bottom of a lake or sea; then, a mountain can just be formed at that location. And presto!, fish at the top of mountains.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

I ask you, who is worse? The wolf that attacks the child, or the father that, though he has the power to stop this, merely sits back, watches, and does nothing?

I'll tell you the fundamental problem. God's inaction can't be compared to an inaction in a single instance, it has to be every single instance, that God divinely intervenes. And if that inaction in these "all instances" is "better" for his creatures, or not.

"Better" is a subjective term, and thats going to be our problem. There is no objective standard to apply here, it's based on our emotional prefernces of the world we live in.

For me personally, if there were a God who is capable of supernaturally intervening in every concievable instances of suffering, or pain to stop it, meddling in our world of human affairs by his supernatural preventions, I'd prefer he didn't.

I prefer the world in which suffering, and pain belongs solely to us, as our responsibility, and centering, and sharing in it's eleviation. If i had a choice between our world as it is, and an alternative world of god's supernatural meddling at every step, I'd prefer this one. It's a world I feel is my own, a world I'm attached to like the lemon I drive, purchased and tended to by the toils and struggles of my own labor, cured by our soldarity and love.

I don't want Gods hand to end the cruelty and suffering of the world around us, but ours.

There's no other world I desire than this one. And there is no other god that I'd prefer that one that gave me such a world as this. Place me in the garden of Eden, and I would have eaten the fruit too.

It's a subjective prefrence, like i like ranch over blue cheese, but there's nothing inconsitent or illogical about this view.

I ask you, who is worse? The wolf that attacks the child, or the father that, though he has the power to stop this, merely sits back, watches, and does nothing?

I'll tell you the fundamental problem. God's inaction can't be compared to an inaction in a single instance, it has to be every single instance, that God divinely intervenes.And if that inaction in these "all instances" is "better" for his creatures, or not.

"Better" is a subjective term, and thats going to be our problem. There is no objective standard to apply here, it's based on our emotional prefernces of the world we live in.

For me personally, if there were a God who is capable of supernaturally intervening in every concievable instances of suffering, or pain to stop it, meddling in our world of human affairs by his supernatural preventions, I'd prefer he didn't.

I prefer the world in which suffering, and pain belongs solely to us, as our responsibility, and centering, and sharing in it's eleviation. If i had a choice between our world as it is, and an alternative world of god's supernatural meddling at every step, I'd prefer this one. It's a world I feel is my own, a world I'm attached to like the lemon I drive, purchased and tended to by the toils and struggles of my own labor, cured by our soldarity and love.

I don't want Gods hand to end the cruelty and suffering of the world around us, but ours.

There's no other world I desire than this one. And there is no other god that I'd prefer that one that gave me such a world as this. Place me in the garden of Eden, and I would have eaten the fruit too.

It's a subjective prefrence, like i like ranch over blue cheese, but there's nothing inconsitent or illogical about this view.